Case 2400153/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Astle v ABIRD Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400153/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Astle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief in a claim that he was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures. The tribunal recorded that he did not have sufficient service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and that he relied on alleged health and safety disclosures made in December 2023 and January 2024.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown it was likely that the final tribunal would find the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the making of protected disclosures. It identified disputes about whether the alleged disclosures were protected and qualifying, and about causation, including evidence that performance concerns pre-dated the alleged disclosures. The application for interim relief was not well founded and failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment decided an interim relief application under section 128(1)(a)(i) Employment Rights Act 1996 in a protected disclosure automatic unfair dismissal claim. It did not finally determine the underlying claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Section 128(1)(a)(i) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 129(1)(a)(i) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz 2011 IRLR 562
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.